I've no doubts. It is said that spiritual teachers descend from full enlightenment in order to teach others.movingalways wrote:As it was told, even the Buddha and Jesus fought such thoughts up until their passing from this earth.Russell: The Enlightened aren't constantly focused on anything in particular. Focusing on the All is for those that seek to overcome delusional thoughts and habits.
The point of transcendence is to overcome blind emotional reactions to all sorts of concepts and experiences.While it is true that language is inherently immersed in contrasts and dualities, there are contrasts and dualities that are purer in function as tools of transcendence then others. The duality-bound concepts 'evil' and 'wrong' are more likely to arouse emotional reactions (deeper attachments) than are those of ignorance-wisdom, do you agree?
Many sages, including Jesus and Buddha, found it useful to arouse deep rooted attachments, to bring them to the forefront, in order to address them head on. A more profound transcendence calls for this, because in many cases, attachments are either subtle, or deeply hidden by tricks of the mind. Just as in trauma victims, the mind is able to conjure up mental gymnastics in order to avoid addressing problematic thoughts and memories. Using strong words like "evil" are useful in pinning down one's consciousness in order to enact a more thorough assessment, leading to a more thorough release.
In the same way, using strong positive words like "God" are useful in arousing a deeper, profound sense of purpose and will .
This is subjective, unique to each individual case. For the more thoroughly transcended, these words are but synonyms.Which promotes effortless of seeing more, the concept 'evil' or the concept 'ignorance?'
I'm using "tool" here in the sense of a practical, temporal attachment, and not an emotional, and therefore egotistical, attachment.By your definition above, ethics are an attachment (a tool is an attachment).
Truth (the totality) is beyond language's ability to grasp, language is the eternal rebirth of the finite. Ethics are a finite language. Ergo, if the cessation of rebirth of the finite is the goal of enlightenment, ethics must be left behind. Perhaps cessation of birthing the finite is not your goal. Which means right off the bat we are speaking disparate languages. :-)
For the one in Truth, all things, including concepts, the use of tools, etc., flow through oneself, not being clung onto. These leads to the cessation of birth and rebirth.